Thank you, Ri, very interesting response. I don't agree, though. Very briefly:
"Pelosi talking points"? Every non-MAGA outlet in the country reported essentially the charges I described, and unlike the MAGA ones, like Fox News, they don't take their talking points from a political party.
The Electoral College is a travesty. States do not h…
Thank you, Ri, very interesting response. I don't agree, though. Very briefly:
"Pelosi talking points"? Every non-MAGA outlet in the country reported essentially the charges I described, and unlike the MAGA ones, like Fox News, they don't take their talking points from a political party.
The Electoral College is a travesty. States do not have interests. Only individuals do -- democratic individualists know this. And individuals from Wyoming have 40 times as much representation in the Senate as individuals from California and ca. 10 times as much representation in the Senate. The Founders did not contrive the Electoral College for the sake of fairness; they did it (at the last minute, with many members objecting) to corral the slave states into the Union.
"Every President before him"? Hundreds of classified documents, many Top Secret? And ignored numerous requests and directives, including a subpoena, from the authorities to return them?
"Every Presidential election is disputed"? Does every losing candidate go to court sixty times and fail even to have his case taken seriously enough to review, in some cases by judges he appointed? And then repeat thousands of times to his deluded base that the actual winner of the election is not their legitimate president?
I haven't read Alan Dershowitz's "Get Trump," but I've read a lot of Dershowitz over the years, and I know to take him with a very large grain of salt. More specifically, I've learned that he's prone to take the side of whoever he thinks will be more supportive of Israel domination of the Palestinians. And besides, this is the guy who got Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson off. You may see a champion of the innocent; I see someone who's not too discriminating about who he defends.
This has been informative. I especially your "Individualists Unite" substack. I'll leave you the last word.
Thank you for a rational response, although I also don't agree with you.
I don't want to get into the weeds, with both of us just rephrasing previous points.
But I can't let the part about the states go by. It is the states that created the federal government, not the other way around. The idea is, the People control the states, and the state control the federal government. It's a very good idea.
Also keep in mind that there is no equivalent to our top-heavy federal government anywhere else in the world. People compare us, unfavorably, to Europe, saying that our federal government should be more like Europe's. That's a stupid thing to say, given that Europe doesn't have a federal government. Twenty-seven Indvidual, autonomous countries have formed the EU for many of the reasons that the autonomous American states created the United States. That's states, plural, not singular.
The EU has no authority concerning healthcare, education or retirement within any of the autonomous 27 member states. Constitutionally, it's supposed to be like that here.
So, how did it get this way, in complete violation of the constitution? Two reasons: the democratic party and the republican party. Neither has ANY governmental authority whatsoever, yet they control every government in America, federal, state and local. That condition does not exist in Europe.
So, what about the electoral college? The states created it specifically as a check against individual states being overrun by an out-of-control central government. And it works.
Let's consider political (not constitutional) realities today. If a president wins both the popular vote and the electoral college vote, there is no issue. It is only when the elected president does not win the popular vote that anyone makes an issue. And who is that 'anyone'? It is the members of the political party that got the popular vote but not the electoral college vote. But, once again, neither party has any governmental authority whatsoever. So, we have a political party with no authority, challenging the authority of the constitution, which was legitimately ratified by all of the states. Every state that has come into the Union since then has pledged to abide by the constitution. None has pledged to abide by a political party.
In a nutshell, in my considered opinion, both parties can just go straight to hell.
Realistically, U.S. states are vestigial because modern communications technology has enabled us to focus our attention there. Americans just aren’t Carolinians or Mainers or Nevadans in the same way Europeans are German, Italian, or Dutch. Americans interact with national political questions more than local ones, and more people get animated over national political stories than local or state-based ones. Localities and states don’t have primary claim on our hearts or eyeballs, and so the political fiction that the states are sovereign over and above the federal government has naturally withered away.
None of that voids any part of the constitution. It was designed to be possible to amend, but not easy to amend. That keeps it stable when rough winds are blowing.
Consider also that if a significant number of people wanted to amend the constitution as you wish, it would have been amended by now. You may resent that, but consider it going in the other direction. The constitution protects your interests as well as it protects mine or anyone else's.
And the USA is far, far from being a homogenous group. Right now, for instance, eastern Oregan wants to secede from the state, because they're fed up with Portland screwing everything up. NY state is controlled by NYC. The rest of the state is not happy about that. Idaho is not California. Massachusetts is not Ohio. (I am quite familiar with both states.)
My daughter put me onto a great book, American Nations, by Colin Woodard. He delineates eleven distinct cultures in the USA. I cringe every time anyone speaks of We the People, as if we are all of one mind, or even one culture.
With your conclusion, I am in wholehearted agreement. A few quibbles on the way to it:
The US govt is not top-heavy compared to Europe. Regulations of all kinds -- financial, health and safety, labor, environmental -- are stricter in Europe, because business does not own the government there to the extent that it owns the US government.
The individual European states set their actual pension and healthcare policies, but they have to meet a minimum EU standard in those and other areas or they're not admitted or penalized.
Anyone can challenge the Constitution. The difficulty is not standing but money. It's hugely expensive to mount campaign for an amendment, which is why we don't have proportional representation, public funding for elections, a wealth tax, and many other things that most ordinary people want but the rich don't.
It's a class society, RI. The problem is not government, it's business's ownership of the government.
Oops ... I just remembered I promised you the last word. Oh well, this time I mean it.
We agree that our culture, generally is top-heavy. I don't make a big distinction between government and business. Top heavy is top heavy.
Too much power is in too few hands. Don't just make it about business. I stick by what I've said about the two parties. They have even less right to be there than big business.
I'm old enough to remember a much less pervasive central government. And it was even less pervasive than that in times past. Here's a simple thought: If you want less business in government, support less government.
And I don't ever insist on the last word. Carry on, as you see fit.
Thank you, Ri, very interesting response. I don't agree, though. Very briefly:
"Pelosi talking points"? Every non-MAGA outlet in the country reported essentially the charges I described, and unlike the MAGA ones, like Fox News, they don't take their talking points from a political party.
The Electoral College is a travesty. States do not have interests. Only individuals do -- democratic individualists know this. And individuals from Wyoming have 40 times as much representation in the Senate as individuals from California and ca. 10 times as much representation in the Senate. The Founders did not contrive the Electoral College for the sake of fairness; they did it (at the last minute, with many members objecting) to corral the slave states into the Union.
"Every President before him"? Hundreds of classified documents, many Top Secret? And ignored numerous requests and directives, including a subpoena, from the authorities to return them?
"Every Presidential election is disputed"? Does every losing candidate go to court sixty times and fail even to have his case taken seriously enough to review, in some cases by judges he appointed? And then repeat thousands of times to his deluded base that the actual winner of the election is not their legitimate president?
Pelosi did not refuse National Guard coverage. Another Trump lie: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/16/fact-check-no-trump-request-10000-guard-troops-jan-6/8929215002/. (Did you know there were 30,000 Trump lies, according to the impeccably truthful Washington Post? You can read their list: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/.)
I haven't read Alan Dershowitz's "Get Trump," but I've read a lot of Dershowitz over the years, and I know to take him with a very large grain of salt. More specifically, I've learned that he's prone to take the side of whoever he thinks will be more supportive of Israel domination of the Palestinians. And besides, this is the guy who got Claus von Bulow and O.J. Simpson off. You may see a champion of the innocent; I see someone who's not too discriminating about who he defends.
This has been informative. I especially your "Individualists Unite" substack. I'll leave you the last word.
Thank you for a rational response, although I also don't agree with you.
I don't want to get into the weeds, with both of us just rephrasing previous points.
But I can't let the part about the states go by. It is the states that created the federal government, not the other way around. The idea is, the People control the states, and the state control the federal government. It's a very good idea.
Also keep in mind that there is no equivalent to our top-heavy federal government anywhere else in the world. People compare us, unfavorably, to Europe, saying that our federal government should be more like Europe's. That's a stupid thing to say, given that Europe doesn't have a federal government. Twenty-seven Indvidual, autonomous countries have formed the EU for many of the reasons that the autonomous American states created the United States. That's states, plural, not singular.
The EU has no authority concerning healthcare, education or retirement within any of the autonomous 27 member states. Constitutionally, it's supposed to be like that here.
So, how did it get this way, in complete violation of the constitution? Two reasons: the democratic party and the republican party. Neither has ANY governmental authority whatsoever, yet they control every government in America, federal, state and local. That condition does not exist in Europe.
So, what about the electoral college? The states created it specifically as a check against individual states being overrun by an out-of-control central government. And it works.
Let's consider political (not constitutional) realities today. If a president wins both the popular vote and the electoral college vote, there is no issue. It is only when the elected president does not win the popular vote that anyone makes an issue. And who is that 'anyone'? It is the members of the political party that got the popular vote but not the electoral college vote. But, once again, neither party has any governmental authority whatsoever. So, we have a political party with no authority, challenging the authority of the constitution, which was legitimately ratified by all of the states. Every state that has come into the Union since then has pledged to abide by the constitution. None has pledged to abide by a political party.
In a nutshell, in my considered opinion, both parties can just go straight to hell.
Realistically, U.S. states are vestigial because modern communications technology has enabled us to focus our attention there. Americans just aren’t Carolinians or Mainers or Nevadans in the same way Europeans are German, Italian, or Dutch. Americans interact with national political questions more than local ones, and more people get animated over national political stories than local or state-based ones. Localities and states don’t have primary claim on our hearts or eyeballs, and so the political fiction that the states are sovereign over and above the federal government has naturally withered away.
None of that voids any part of the constitution. It was designed to be possible to amend, but not easy to amend. That keeps it stable when rough winds are blowing.
Consider also that if a significant number of people wanted to amend the constitution as you wish, it would have been amended by now. You may resent that, but consider it going in the other direction. The constitution protects your interests as well as it protects mine or anyone else's.
And the USA is far, far from being a homogenous group. Right now, for instance, eastern Oregan wants to secede from the state, because they're fed up with Portland screwing everything up. NY state is controlled by NYC. The rest of the state is not happy about that. Idaho is not California. Massachusetts is not Ohio. (I am quite familiar with both states.)
My daughter put me onto a great book, American Nations, by Colin Woodard. He delineates eleven distinct cultures in the USA. I cringe every time anyone speaks of We the People, as if we are all of one mind, or even one culture.
American Nations-Amazon: https://a.co/d/cUuklPD
With your conclusion, I am in wholehearted agreement. A few quibbles on the way to it:
The US govt is not top-heavy compared to Europe. Regulations of all kinds -- financial, health and safety, labor, environmental -- are stricter in Europe, because business does not own the government there to the extent that it owns the US government.
The individual European states set their actual pension and healthcare policies, but they have to meet a minimum EU standard in those and other areas or they're not admitted or penalized.
Anyone can challenge the Constitution. The difficulty is not standing but money. It's hugely expensive to mount campaign for an amendment, which is why we don't have proportional representation, public funding for elections, a wealth tax, and many other things that most ordinary people want but the rich don't.
It's a class society, RI. The problem is not government, it's business's ownership of the government.
Oops ... I just remembered I promised you the last word. Oh well, this time I mean it.
We agree that our culture, generally is top-heavy. I don't make a big distinction between government and business. Top heavy is top heavy.
Too much power is in too few hands. Don't just make it about business. I stick by what I've said about the two parties. They have even less right to be there than big business.
I'm old enough to remember a much less pervasive central government. And it was even less pervasive than that in times past. Here's a simple thought: If you want less business in government, support less government.
And I don't ever insist on the last word. Carry on, as you see fit.